To marry, not to marry–who do you marry? Wisconsin citizens will be voting on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment on Nov. 7. A very critical responsibility for our state. Have you done your research on comments made by those working so hard, spending millions of dollars to defeat this amendment? You need to check this one out before voting Nov. 7. For instance: In the most recent issue of the Advocate, the newspaper of the Coalition of Wisconsin Aging groups, they refer to a group Fair Wisconsin. If you are computer savvy, look this one up and read where they come from and who all is involved in encouraging all seniors in Wisconsin to defeat this amendment. The article is appalling, full of scare tactics and just plain untruthful in content. To convince a populace, if this amendment were to pass, that by “cohabitating” instead of being married they could lose all their benefits, or that it would create many legal expenses by being tied up in the court system has even been refuted by our own Attorney General Lautenschlager. (Who by the way is against this amendment personally).

If you receive the AARP bulletin for October 2006, their comment reads that cohabitating couples are on the increase and this is to protect their individual estates to be handled as they so desire to their heirs. Who is right? You are if you stop and think … therefore, all I ask of you, who believe this is nonsense, is to stop and really think about your own situation compared to what you are hearing in the media – do you have your paperwork done? As it relates to: wills, pensions, dispersal of your assets and estate, durable powers of attorney for health care (refutes their comment about hospital visitations and/or making decisions on your behalf if you are incapacitated) – these are things any citizen can do and should do. You have the right to indicate everything as you want your estate to be handled, your hospital visitations, your health in case of incapacity and more. Have you got your paperwork done? The Wisconsin Marriage Amendment does not ban nor threaten existing or future benefit arrangements for unmarried Wisconsin couples. (As even clarified by the Attorney General Lautenschlager). There are just too many scare tactics and lies being presented in this issue because the stakes are high for the homosexual community particularly.

They also are no different than you and I for getting their paperwork done either. Why do so many individuals consider living together and not remarrying? – You know why, and it is to protect your estate for your heirs as well as keeping benefits you know are better in most cases individually. This is not an endorsement for cohabitating outside of marriage as each couple (male and female) must make decisions to their best interests. This is an endorsement to get out and vote yes for Wisconsin Marriage Amendment on Nov. 7. It has much more far reaching consequences than catering to the whims of one special interest group using false notions to defeat such an important piece of legislation. The iceberg is getting very slippery, let’s not be so naïve to believe that we want to get on the sled. Think about it.

I read the article here and found no 'scare tactics' or anything at all that was radical or misleading. It makes sense. I'll vote NO on the amendment.

When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a meteorite hurtling to the Earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much hosed no matter what you wish for. Unless it's death by meteor.

Amendment opponents attempt to confuse voters: Two recent events reveal tactics to confuse voters used by opponents of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

They have been criticizing the second sentence of the amendment which states, “A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.” Our legislators were wise when they authored the Nov. 7 amendment. This was proven last week when the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered their legislature to enact legislation that would either approve same sex marriages or a similar legal status such as civil unions. The facts speak for themselves – without the amendment activist judges could do the same in Wisconsin.

Misleading voters came to a new level, however, with opponent’s latest TV ad. This ad which implies that a “No” vote will insure that there will be no change in Wisconsin and that there will be no gay marriage is out and out deceptive. Wisconsin voters are smarter than that; they do know how to read! Intelligent voters will recognize the manipulation when they read the amendment which states, “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this State.” These tactics of deception reveal the lack of integrity of those running these ads. The truth is passage of this amendment will put the State of Wisconsin citizens with those from other 20 states. Voters in those states have overwhelmingly approved similar amendments with an average favorable vote of 71 percent. A Yes vote protects natural families, our children and grandchildren.

Sadly, I think our great-great-grand children are going to look back on this issue much like we do the mess over slavery. It's truly ridiculous how much time and energy has been spent on such a trivial issue when there are so many other important things we could be trying to fix.

Tell me, does the fact that a non-Christian getting married make your vows as a Christian any less sacred (personally)? How is it any different in any other situation?

It's currently not legal for gays to marry in Wisconsin. All this does is add something to the constitution that may create a whole bunch of other issues and is likely to be an embarrassment someday in the future.

My simple request on this one is that people stop and think and not shoot from their hip. I personally disagree with a lot of people's lifestyles but what they choose to do in their personal lives is their choice as long as it doesn't effect me. However, do we really need to amend our constitution over this?